IMPORTANT POINT
The Sub-Registrar's duty is to verify the identity of the executant and their admission of execution, not to ascertain the title of the property being sold.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Vidyarthi, J.

1. Heard Sri Mohammad Arif Khan Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohammad Aslam Khan Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. K. Khare, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and Sri Kapil Muni Dubey, the learned counsel for the contesting private opposite parties.

2. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has sought issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 03.05.1993, passed by the District Registrar, whereby an order dated 15.03.1989, passed by the Sub- Registrar, Gonda has been set aside and the Sub-Registrar has been directed to register an agreement dated 15.11.1988 executed by the opposite party no.2-Radha Mohan, in favour of deceased opposite party no.3-Ladla agreeing to sell a piece of land bearing Gata No.107/1-78 and 2-00 acre out of Gata No.195/3-00 which was presented for registration on 15.11.1988.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the opposite party no.2 was the Bhumidhar of Plot No.195 area 2.16 acres, Plot No.107 area 1.78 acres, Plot No.195 area 3.00 acres and Plot No.47-Dha area 0.40 acres, situated in Village Amdohwa, Pargana, Tehsil and District Gonda. On 07.03.1989 he executed a sale deed in respect of Plot No.107 in favour of the petitioner no.1 and on 31.03.1989 he executed another sale deed in respect of 0.40 acre land out of Plot No.195 in favour of the petitioner no.2. On 13.11.1990 he executed yet another sale deed in respect of Plot No. 195 and 47-Dha in favour of the petitioner nos.3 to 5. Meanwhile, on 09.03.1989, the opposite party no.3 and 4 presented an agreement dated 15.11.1988 executed by the opposite party no.2 in their favour agreeing to sell Plot Nos.107 and 195, for being registered under Section 36 of the Registration Act. The Sub-Registrar issued notice to the opposite party no.2.

4. On 15.03.1989, the Sub-Registrar passed an order stating that as there was a strike going on, summon was sent through registered post, fixing 14.03.1989 as the date of appearance. However, the acknowledgment of service of summon had not been received back. The Sub-Registrar held that as the limitation for registration of the deed had expired and no time was left for issuing fresh summons, registration was refused under Section 35 (3) read with Section 71 (1) of Registration Act.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the opposite party no.3 filed Case No.7/89, under Section 73 of Registration Act before the District Registrar, Gonda, which was allowed by means of the impugned order dated 03.05.1993. The Registrar has recorded in the aforesaid order that on 09.03.1989 the deceased opposite party no.2 - Ladla Prasad had produced before the Sub-Registrar, Gonda an agreement executed on 15.11.1988 by Radha Mohan (the opposite party no.2) to sell the land bearing Gata No.107/1.78 acres and 2 acres land out of Gata No.195/3-00 in favour of Ladla Prasad and Girwar Dayal (opposite parties no.3 and 4), for being registered under Section 36 of Registration Act. The executant of the agreement Radha Mohan had not presented himself for registration of the document before the Sub-Registrar Gonda. Upon production of document by the applicant, the Sub-Registrar, Gonda had issued notice to the executant Radha Mohan through registered post, which was not received back and the Sub-Registrar refused to register the agreement on 15.03.1989. It has been stated in the application under Section 73 of the Registration Act that they had entered into an agreement to purchase the land in dispute from Radha Mohan for a sale consideration of Rs.52,000/, out of which Rs.43,000/- had been paid by him and the remaining amount was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. The agreement had been prepared, the seller had put his thumb impression on it and the marginal witnesses had also put their respective signatures. The seller had got prepared his two photogr